The daily herald. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1886-1887, 1887-02-03
Cane Planters in Court.


Before Judge McCully, January 18th
Arthur E. II. Swift, of the firm Of
Swift, Garstins & Co, cane planters to
the Kllauea Sugar Company, filed a
bill of complaint in equity, praying for
dissolution and accounting Of the
partnership Of the firm, and for an in
junction to restrain the defendants, Fl.
n, Garstln and Norman ID. Garstin,
from interfering in the planting
business Of the firm. The complaint
stated that the articles of partnership
were signed by defendants in the
months of April and June, 1884; that
the partnership property consisted of
helds of growing cane in Kilauea,
houses, tools, implements, labor con.
tracts and certain agreement between
the kilauea Sugar Company and the
complainant, Arthur Z. II. Swift,
dated the 10th Of March, 1884 for the
cultivation Of cane and its manufacture
into sugar, etc; that the said Swift was
engaged in cane business in Kilauea
prior to the date Of said planting agree
ment; that the Garstins desired to be
taken into partnership with complain
ant, he being at that time engaged to
be married to the sister of said defend
ants; that complainant built houses
and planted cane prior to the signing
of the articles of partnership and was
responsible for the cost Of such; that
business under the partnership was
commenced in August, 1884, and de-
PENDANTS did not appear on the prem
ises until December of that year; that
II. II. Garstin retracted his signature
to the articles, although he had been at
Kilauea all along taking part in the
business; that the partnership funds
had been exhausted while there were
outstanding debts; that complainant
made a demand for payment, by letter
On December 20, 1886, which had not
been complied with; that shortly after
beginning business suspicious and i'll
feeling began to be developed between
the parties, which interfered with the
business and prevented 1t from being
wholly profitable; that defendants or
one of them caused the aforesaid en-
gagement Of marriage to be broken off;
that by the carelessness and ignorance
Of N. ID. Garstin about accounts the
business had suffered, and that the in.
reference Of the Garstins with the la
borers had injured discipline in the
field.
The defendants on February rst filed
their answer to the bill Of complaint
and asked that it be dismissed and the
injunction dissolved. They admitted
the statements regarding the forma-
ton of the partnership and the retrac-
ton of II. II. Garstin's signature, but
stated that he withdrew his signature
under the impression that his brother,
who was then in London, would not
enter the firm. They denied the al
legged carelessness and ignorance of ac-
counts, charging Swift with keeping the
books out Of their reach. They assert
that they put $4,000 each into the
business, while Swift only put in
$1,000; denied that complainant had
incurred expenses before the date of
the planting agreement; characterized
the reference to the marriage engage
ment as impertinent and irrelevant, and
claimed that at this juncture of the
plantation work the dissolution OF part
nership would involve serious loss AS
to their alleged interference with the
complainant they denied it; and with
regard to haranguing the laborers,
charged by him, they submitted affida-
Wits to show that they had only told the
laborers that they were still in the part
nership, after Swift had advertised that
he was sole owner of the planting con.
tract and also told the laborers that he
was their only employer. An affidavit
was also submitted from r. A. Mache,
l. r., manager of the KiIauea Sugar Co.,
to the effect that defendants were as at
tentlve to the business and as qualified
for it as the complainant.
The injunction, that was issued on
the 18th ult on bond for $1,000 by
the complainant, was returnable before
Judge McCully yesterday. w. R.
Castle appeared for the complainant,
read the bill of complaint and made
argument +. M. Hatch read the
answer of defendants and argued a
motion for dIssolving the injunction
and dismissing the bill The Court
ordered the injunction dissolved and
appointed Tuesday, February Stb, for
a hearing on the bill of complaint.